Your editorial (The Guardian view on England’s social housing system: failing the very people it was built for, 10 December) claims that “social homes were supposed to be for those who couldn’t afford private rents”. That’s not so. Most council estates, such as Becontree and Harold Hill, were built following the first and second world wars to house ordinary working families when decent housing was in dire straits. Privately rented properties were often of poor quality and devoid of basic amenities.
The governments then believed it imperative to house ordinary families in good-quality modern housing. Relying on private landlords and precarious tenancies was seen practically as an insult to the nation’s people, and even financially well-off council tenants could rest assured that their tenancy was not going to be terminated.
This civic mindset endured until Margaret Thatcher kickstarted the sell-off of social housing, resulting in up to half of social housing ending up in the hands of private landlords. One can often spot these by their poorly maintained look.
Roger Driscoll
Epping, Essex
Ten years ago I wrote an article for the Guardian that predicted the slow death of social housing. I was heavily criticised by sector leaders at the time for doing so. My main argument was that various factors were coming together, which meant that in future housing associations would no longer provide homes for poor people.
Last week, Crisis produced a report which says exactly that (People on lowest incomes being denied access to social housing, research finds, 8 December). The lack of social-rent homes, the increase in so-called affordable housing, the letting criteria of many housing associations and government policy on benefits all now prevent poor people from accessing social housing. In the same week, Shelter reported that the number of homeless people has reached unprecedented levels.
This begs the simple question I asked 10 years ago: where will those people go? And what is the future for social housing if it is no longer able to carry out one of its main functions – to provide homes for those in the greatest need? Perhaps a new form of social housing is required, funded directly by the government, managed locally and accountable to local communities. I wonder what we would call it?
Tom Murtha
Studley, Warwickshire
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
